Agent.Space Blog

LLM API Latency: Find Why a Coding Agent Feels Slow

Measure time to first output, generation, tools, and retries separately to diagnose a slow coding Agent without guessing from total wait time.

To troubleshoot LLM API latency, separate waiting for the model from waiting for the rest of the Agent. A slow test command, repeated retry, or approval prompt can dominate the task even when generation is fast.

The measurement workflow below is a suggested diagnostic method, not an Agent.Space speed benchmark. Provider guidance was checked September 29, 2026.

Define what “slow” means

Choose the interval you care about:

  • Time to first visible output: how long the user sees no useful response.
  • Generation time: how long the response continues producing output.
  • Tool time: time spent reading files, running commands, or waiting on external services.
  • Accepted-task time: the full path to a usable result, including retries and review.

Streaming can improve how quickly progress appears without making the entire task finish faster. OpenAI's latency guidance discusses streaming, output length, and request count as separate levers.

Record one task as a timeline

Keep the model, task, client, and endpoint fixed. Mark these events with a consistent clock:

EventWhat it helps locate
User starts taskOverall start
Application sends requestLocal queue or preparation delay
First response event arrivesTransport/provider waiting
First useful text appearsRendering or non-text-event delay
Tool starts and endsTool or dependency delay
Final result is acceptedComplete task cost in time

A response event may be metadata rather than text. Be explicit about your definition instead of comparing two different “first token” measurements.

Keep request IDs, output size, retry count, and whether the prompt was cached. Do not record raw keys or sensitive prompts. The model-routing verification guide explains why a response's self-description is not reliable routing evidence.

Change the layer that is actually slow

ObservationNext investigation
Long gap before request leavesClient queue, context preparation, local load
Slow first eventConnection, provider queue, input processing, or pre-output work
Output arrives slowlyOutput length, selected model/settings, streaming consumer
Long tool gapCommand, network dependency, or pending user approval
Repeated short attemptsRetry policy and the original error

Client timing alone cannot separate provider queueing from model computation. Label that interval “provider/transport wait” unless you have stronger evidence. Latency also cannot prove a provider substituted another model.

Compare one controlled change

Run a small, budgeted set of representative tasks. Change one factor: shorter unnecessary output, fewer redundant calls, or a corrected retry policy. Check that the result still satisfies the same acceptance condition.

Keep individual timings and failures, not only an average. A few samples can expose a reproducible stall; they do not establish a reliable production percentile or a universal model ranking.

If tools take most of the time, switching models may add cost without fixing the bottleneck. If shorter answers omit required work, the apparent speedup is not a valid win.

Keep the connection and the task observable

Use the Developer API guide to establish a known connection before diagnosing performance. For model choices, consult the coding Agent model selection guide after the timing evidence is clear.

Open Agent.Space if you need a supported client setup. Start with a reproducible small task, and judge speed by useful completion—not the first animated token.